Is AG Eric Holder a 'Crypto-Conservative'?

[Condescending_Robot]

@Cliffy

Holder, like the president under which he serves, in a believer in the Rule of Law.

Funniest thing I’ve read all week!

[Leaper]

@Evil_Captor

Sorry, doesn’t pass the sniff test. If he gave a shit about the Rule of Law, he would have prosecuted SOMEBODY at HSBC for laundering drug cartel and Al Qaeda money. But he didn’t, just sat back on his hands and let them pay a paltry fine that is a pittance compared to all the money they made laundering drug money.

This seems to be perfect for my “could we prosecute major Wall Street figures and bankers?” thread. Have you brought this up over there?

[The_Second_Stone]

@Evil_Captor

Sorry, doesn’t pass the sniff test. If he gave a shit about the Rule of Law, he would have prosecuted SOMEBODY at HSBC for laundering drug cartel and Al Qaeda money. But he didn’t, just sat back on his hands and let them pay a paltry fine that is a pittance compared to all the money they made laundering drug money.

And within THAT context, his going after small medical marijuana clinics in California is arrant hypocrisy.

He’s a shameful, disgusting excuse for an Attorney General.

Rule of Law my ass!

HSBC is an excellent example of how the US Department of Justice is to be feared by money launderers: to be cut in with a small percentage making it all legal! :rolleyes:

[Evil_Captor]

@Leaper

This seems to be perfect for my “could we prosecute major Wall Street figures and bankers?” thread. Have you brought this up over there?

Post #172. To which no one responded … prolly because they did not have one that would work.

[Condescending_Robot]

I don’t think it can both be the case that “the reason the economic crisis happened is that laws were loosened allowing overly risky behavior to be legal” and “we need to prosecute the bankers who caused the economic crisis.” You can’t go back and charge people with “being bad people” if their actions weren’t illegal.

Which doesn’t change the fact that the notion of Holder/Obama being huge fans of the rule of law is downright hilarious…these are the people who declared they wouldn’t prosecute any Bush administration members for torture because it would be bad politics.

[Grumman]

@Cliffy

Holder, like the president under which he serves, in a believer in the Rule of Law.

Bullshit. Holder, like the president under which he serves, supports extralegal assassination of US citizens as a tool of the executive.

[WillFarnaby]

@Cliffy

Holder, like the president under which he serves, in a believer in the Rule of Law. This means a couple things. First, marijuana is illegal everywhere in the country by operation of federal law. States do not have the power to change that. Whether you believe MJ should be decriminalized or not (I’m ambivalent, I must admit), allowing states to nullify federal law is a very dangerous road to go down, and in almost every instance the states that have tried were doing so in order to discriminate against black people. (There was a whole war we fought on the issue you may have heard something about.) As a black man, I don’t think Holder is unfamiliar with this tradition. Moreover, as a career prosecutor who spent the '90’s presiding over the drug-ravaged neighborhoods on the East Side of the District of Columbia, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that he has different views on MJ than white suburbanites who just want to toke on the weekends without getting hassled.
–Cliffy

Pardon me for not reading further than this delightfully dense offering of wrong.

“Almost every instance” in which nullification was tried was to “discriminate against black people”? Then you make an inane reference to the War of Northern Aggression. Oh maybe you’re talking about when the northern states nullified the fugitive slave law, which stated they must return escaped slaves to their “owners” in the south? Of course you knew that South Carolina listed nullification among its grievances when it seceded from the US. You also probably knew that Jefferson Davis spoke out against nullification when he exited the senate. Nullification was only used against slavery, never in support of it.

Also, I was unaware of the marijuana-“ravaged” streets of Washington DC. Now if California had legalized heroin dispensaries you might have a point, if still wrong. If anything those streets are ravaged by the drug war.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Nullification was used quite frequently to protect people who lynched blacks in the Jim Crow South.

[WillFarnaby]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Nullification was used quite frequently to protect people who lynched blacks in the Jim Crow South.

You’re talking about jury nullification by white juries in cases brought against whites. The other poster and I were obviously talking about state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. If you would like to discuss the racist origins of anti-nullification jurisprudence, I would happily respond in another thread on the matter.

[Cliffy]

@WillFarnaby

War of Northern Aggression

plonk

[WillFarnaby]

@Cliffy

plonk

In my opinion, it would have been wiser to not respond than to respond with this stupidity. Now it is clear that you read my deconstruction of your cliched take on nullification and its relation to the Civil War, but were unable to respond with anything of substance.